ID: nht94-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1994

FROM: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Items Applicable To Type A-1 School Buses Under 10,000 Lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight In New 217 FMVSS.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Please advis us of the items applicable to Small School Buses, Sixteen & Twenty Passenger, less than 10,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight pertinent to the new 217 FMVSS.

We were told earlier by Mr. Charles Hott that the reflective marking tape outlining Rear Emergency Doors was not required on Type A-1 School Buses.

Please tell us if Type A-1 School Buses need the following items:

1. Roof Hatches ? 2. Push Out Windows on each side ? 3. Reflective Marking Tape around Emergency Rear Doors ?

We received a notice today that the new standard 217 will not become effective until September 1, 1994 and that it only applys to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht91-7.11

DATE: November 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Carl Miller -- O.E. Sales Manager, DICO Tire, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-17-91 from Carl Miller to NHTSA (OCC 6586)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, to new tires sold in the replacement market. You indicated that, as a manufacturer of boat trailer tires, you believed that Part 574 required you to provide recall information cards for every new tire, whether that tire was to be installed as original equipment or sold in the replacement market. You added, however, that you heard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had recently restricted the application of this requirement to tires sold as original equipment. Accordingly, you requested the agency to confirm that information. NHTSA has made no amendments to Part 574 that would restrict the requirement that tire manufacturers provide recall information cards only for those tires sold as original equipment. Hence, tire manufacturers remain subject to the requirement that they provide such cards to every distributor and dealer that sells the manufacturer's new tires, regardless of whether those new tires are sold as original equipment on a vehicle or as an individual replacement item.

Part 574 sets forth tire information and recordkeeping requirements to facilitate notification of purchasers in the event that a manufacturer must recall a tire to remedy a safety-related defect, or a noncompliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Among Part 574's requirements, S574.7 specifies requirements for tire registration forms. I believe these forms are what your letter refers to as "recall information cards." S574.7 requires each new tire manufacturer and each new tire brand name owner (or its designee) to provide tire registration forms to every distributor and dealer of its tires which offers "new tires for sale or lease to tire purchasers. (49 CFR 574.7(a)(1)) Part 574 defines "tire purchaser" as "a person who buys or leases a new tire, or who buys or leases for 60 days or more a motor vehicle containing a new tire for purposes other than resale." (49 CFR 574.3(5))

Thus, S574.7(a)(1) explicitly requires that tire registration forms be provided to every distributor or dealer that offers a manufacturer's new tires for sale to the public. S574.7 makes no distinction between tires to be sold as original equipment and tires sold as replacement products.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574 and have highlighted the provisions that relate to your question. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ATTACHMENT

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, pages 588-601. (Text omitted)

ID: nht95-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 10, 1995

FROM: Vladimir Salita

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/2/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO VLADIMIR SALITA (A43; STD. 201; STD. 104; STD. 108; VSA 102); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERESA THOMPSON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WAYNE FERGUSON (STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am taking the liberty to write you. I have been advised by Mr. Vaniderstine to address to you this letter. Being an electronic engineer I came to some ideas related to improving safety of driving. I hope the inventions I made might be very useful and patentable.

My ideas are now in different stages of developement: some of them have been realized in working models, others need futher research and testing. Before taking next step I would like to be sure that my inventions are in accordance with existing stand ards. Also I would very appreciate your opinion on usefulness of the inventions.

The brief descriptions of the inventions are enclosed.

Thank you for your time and attitude.

Enclosure

WARNING AND TEACHING DEVISE FOR IMPROVING OF

DRIVING HABITS AND FUEL ECONOMY.

This is a simple, easy-to-install devise, which is to warn drivers by indicating the excessive deceleration, acceleration and dangerous speed at turns by emitting sound signals. Such warning will teach motor vehicle drivers how to take adequate and s afe actions and to improve fuel economy. This devise can be adjustable for different levels of the controlled parameters or / and be factory-preset to the predetermined values.

This inexpensive, dashboard-mounted devise can be powered from separate battery or cigarette lighter and the installation does not require any experience.

The working model is available.

DECELERATION WARNING LIGHT.

The devise measures actual vehicle deceleration and its output controls the frequency of light flashing (preferable high-mounted brake light). This makes following vehicles drivers alert and thus reduces risk of rear-end collisions.

The devise proposed is inexpensive, small sized and easy-to-install.

There are several patents related to the given invention, which, however, differ from the proposed one those show that the problem is still actual and the solution is very desirable.

The working model is available.

SELF-ADJUSTABLE WINDSHIELD WIPER.

This devise controls the rate of windshield wiper sweeps according to intensity of rain, thus it eliminates the distraction of driver's attention and makes driving more comfortable. This is to improve traffic safety. It needs no additional sensors, such as humidity sensors or windshield transparency sensors.

ID: 11877.WKM

Mr. Joseph S. Kunowski
660 Crestwood Drive
Bloomsburg, PA 17815

Dear Mr. Kunowski:

This responds to your April 3, 1996, letter to Mr. J. P. McGowan, Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, which was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply. You express safety concerns about the small space-saver spare tires with which new passenger motor vehicles are commonly equipped.

NHTSA=s Director of Intergovernmental Affairs recently responded to a letter on your behalf from Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, U.S. House of Representatives. As explained in that May 13, 1996, letter, although these spare tires are smaller than regular tires, they are nevertheless required to meet our tire performance standards. We have enclosed a copy of the letter for your convenience, as well as a copy of a January 11, 1993 letter to Senator Bob Graham about these tires.

Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Mr. J. P. McGowan

ref:109 d:6/6/96

ID: nht94-6.6

DATE: May 2, 1994

FROM: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Items Applicable To Type A-1 School Buses Under 10,000 Lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight In New 217 FMVSS.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Please advis us of the items applicable to Small School Buses, Sixteen & Twenty Passenger, less than 10,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight pertinent to the new 217 FMVSS.

We were told earlier by Mr. Charles Hott that the reflective marking tape outlining Rear Emergency Doors was not required on Type A-1 School Buses.

Please tell us if Type A-1 School Buses need the following items:

1. Roof Hatches ? 2. Push Out Windows on each side ? 3. Reflective Marking Tape around Emergency Rear Doors ?

We received a notice today that the new standard 217 will not become effective until September 1, 1994 and that it only applys to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht90-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DOUGLAS MAYES -- PRESIDENT CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS TO NHTSA; RE BRAKING DISTANCE TEST AND LABORATORIES USED BY DOT; OCC 4087

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking questions in relation to your product called "gyroscopic wheel covers." We apologize for the delay in our response.

According to your letter and accompanying information, you claim that use of "gyroscopic wheel covers" can reduce stopping distance. You stated that Dr. Carl Clark of this agency suggested that you request this office to provide a letter specifically ou tlining the requirements of the agency's braking test, and a list of the various testing facilities used by the agency when testing a product for this purpose. You then asked for a letter stating the "stopping distance test guidelines" of Safety Standar d No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems," and a list of laboratories acceptable to DOT that could be used to test your product. You also asked whether an SAE standard is a proper example of a stopping distance test. You stated that it is your intention to us e these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document your product's test results in compliance with the DOT testing standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its products meet applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The standard specifies, among other things, a number of stopping distance tests that each motor vehicle must meet. I have enclosed a copy of the stand ard for your information.

I note that Standard No. 105 was not designed for the purpose of evaluating whether a product such as yours can improve stopping distance. We are unable to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of using Standard No. 105's stopping distance tests fo r that purpose, or how such a test program would best be carried out.

This agency does not provide recommendations or endorsements for particular testing laboratories. I have, however, enclosed a list of the independent laboratories conducting compliance tests for NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance during the cur rent fiscal year.

I have also enclosed a copy of an information sheet we have prepared which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

[NHTSA STANDARD NO 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS; 49 CFR CHAPTER V; DATED 10/01/89 OMITTED]

ID: nht94-4.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1994

FROM: Bryan J Williams -- Director, International Operations, Red Spot Paint And Varnish Co., Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REF: Request For Written Interpretation / FMVSS108 and AAMVA Listing

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRYAN J. WILLIAMS (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty coatings for plastics. Our major market is for automotive applications; one of which is UV Curable SRC coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These products (specifically UVT200) pro vide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure.

UVT200 has approvals from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Chrysler Corporation for application on polycarbonate headlamp lenses to Specifications ESB-M80J-3A, MG5060 and MS-PP5-5 respectively. The coating was approved following the completion of 3 year Florida and Arizona weathering; measurements indicating the coating's conformity to the standards of SAEJ576(c) [1970] ref: chromaticity, haze, luminous transmittance and appearance were performed by the Red Spot Test Laboratory (which has "Self C ertifying" status from these US automakers.) The coating is currently being used in production at finishers for all three of these OEMs; there have been no questions about the "acceptability" of this coating on polycarbonate from any US State or Territor y.

I have received several requests from overseas headlamp manufacturers (potential users of UVT200) with respect to the fact that UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) "Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles."

The question for which written interpretation is requested is as follows:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS108?

The perception exists among overseas headlamp manufacturers that AAMVA Listing of a coating is required by Federal Law . . . that appearance on this list is a prerequisite for the certification to FMVSS108 standards.

Your written comments clarifying the status of AAMVA (and their "Listing . . ." publication) and its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are requested.

Please respond via facsimile to (812) 467-2388 to my attention.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I shall await your response. If you have questions or find issues which require further clarification, please contact me directly: Bryan J Williams

Director, International Operations

Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc.

1111 East Louisiana Street

Evansville IN 47711

P: (812) 428-9192

F: (812) 467-2388

ID: 11846.ZTV

Mr. John Misumi
Operations Officer
Vision Industries
2338 Walgrove Avenue
Mar Vista, CA 90066

Dear Mr. Misumi:

This replies to your letter of April 22, 1996, to Enid Rubenstein of this Office asking for information on the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a limited-production vehicle you intend to manufacture in the near future. You have the following specific questions:

1. "Which FMVSS tests are applicable to us as an automobile manufacturer?"

Every manufacturer must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, regardless of the size of its production, unless otherwise exempted by this agency pursuant to the procedures of 49 CFR Part 555. I enclose a copy of this regulation for your information.

2. "What are the estimated fees and costs of applicable FMVSS tests?"

I am sorry, but we have no information of the fees and costs that the various test laboratories charge private concerns.

3. "What is the time frame pertaining to the administration and completion of applicable FMVSS tests, relative to the vehicle production and sales cycle, (i.e., are tests to be administered and completed before any production vehicles "roll off" the production line, or can certification be completed after vehicles roll off the production line?)?"

Title 49 United States Code Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety does not require a manufacturer to conduct "tests", but it does require the manufacturer to produce motor vehicles that comply, and are certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We advise manufacturers that, although the soundest way to assure compliance and the veracity of its associated certification is to test according to the procedures set forth in the standards, it may certify on the basis of computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations and

other reasonable substitutes for physical testing. Furthermore, it should retain the data in its files upon which its certification was based, in the event NHTSA ever asks the manufacturer to substantiate its certification.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30115 Certification of compliance, a manufacturer is required to "certify [compliance] to the distributor or dealer at delivery", and it "may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the [manufacturer] has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." Thus, a manufacturer should assure itself before applying the certification label that its vehicle fully conforms. This suggests that all test or other substantiating data be at hand at the time the first vehicle is certified. However, if a test laboratory has informed the manufacturer on an informal basis that it has tested a vehicle and found it to meet the performance requirements of a standard, the manufacturer could reasonably certify compliance before receiving the official test report.

The question you have asked is really best answered by the individual manufacturer based upon its best judgment and the legal considerations discussed above.

4. "What agencies or business entities administer FMVSS tests in the Los Angeles area?"

I enclose a list of test laboratories in the United States that NHTSA used in fiscal year 1995 to conduct its compliance testing. There may be additional testing labs that perform these services, and you may wish to consult other sources.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567#VSA d:5/24/96

ID: 86-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GEORGE W. KEELEY, -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY; LETTER DATED 02/25/86 EST, TO RICHARD F HAHN FROM DIANE K STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Keeley:

Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1986, to Administrator Steed, which was referred to my office for reply. As stated in the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, to Mr. Hahn, the interpretation letter to Mr. Pennells should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment. Therefore, the Pennells letter, when read together with the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, represents the agency's advisory opinion on this issue.

As to your request for a copy of any future request for interpretation from Mr. Pennells, please be advised that all the requests for interpretations and agency advisory letters are publicly available from our docket section which is located at room 5109, at the above address. You may wish to contact, periodically, the docket section to obtain a copy of any interpretation letter issued by the agency.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-8.20

DATE: March 24, 1992

FROM: Tm Kozy -- Marketing Director, Infini Med

TO: Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tm Kozy (A39; Std. 208; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have a question regarding the use of adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to a bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative?

On the same subject, I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the airbag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed?

We need to know the answers to these questions from a marketing standpoint, and also because I use hand controls myself.

Thank you for any help you can give us regarding this matter.